Church LifeChristian Doctrine from Bible Theology Ministries is for Christians who want to learn true doctrine and others who are seeking God.http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 23:41:28 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbAccusing a Pastorhttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/2046-accusing-a-pastor
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/2046-accusing-a-pastorCan a pastor be accused? If he is sinning, yes. However, we have to carefully define what we mean. We must define ‘pastor’; and we must define ‘accusation’ and what we mean by a response. This is needed because there are very few genuine pastors, and very few genuine accusations.

Bringing a charge against a pastor is a very serious action to take, and must be handled with extreme care. Though a pastor is equal to every other member of a local church, he is acting on behalf of the Lord and is not a whipping-post to be attacked by anyone with a grievance, even if the complaint is genuine.

One reason for this careful consideration is given in 1 Timothy 5:17

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”

This is followed by verse 19:

“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.”

Those who bring accusations, then, must do so before witnesses; accusations should not just be angrily blurted out to someone other than the pastor. To be more precise, the accuser should speak first with the pastor; only go to others if he refuses to face the charges, and, even then, the pastor must be present with the witnesses. In other words, accusations may not be made privately to others. The pastor is too important in God’s eyes to be kicked around with words, and especially words that are part of an accusation (spiritually, an accusation is the same as a charge).

Thus, making a ‘private complaint’, NOT to the pastor, but to someone else, is an act of betrayal, mere gossip, against a man chosen by God to pastor, and whose role means his life is devoted to the well-being of the flock, even when what he says might not be liked by some. Those who bring a complaint before someone else about the pastor is not showing the respect due to the pastor demanded by God. (It is assumed the pastor in question is genuinely called by God).

When a pastor is thus attacked (which is what a private complaint really is) without having the opportunity to defend himself, the complainant is unknowingly acting on behalf of Satan, the accuser of the brethren, doing his job for him. Such complaints or accusations are often false, and the net result is to hurt the pastor and to divide the local church… something that can be very hard to put right. Many genuine pastors have thus been hurt deeply, along with the local church.

Also, the one the accusation is made to (not the pastor) should rightly challenge the accuser for proof, and advise the complainant not to be so rash, when God demands a proper respect for the man who shepherds His flock on earth. To accuse such a man with no regard for his office can injure very badly.

John Calvin once said about this kind of attack against pastors: “It is a sign of a perverse and treacherous disposition to wound the good name of another, when he has no opportunity of defending himself.” The trouble arises when the accuser does not speak to the pastor face-to-face, but does so behind his back. Then, it is a form of betrayal. Personally (and probably like most true pastors), I have no problem at all with direct opposition or even accusations, UNLESS they are made without my knowledge, because such accusers are akin to hit-and-run drivers leaving the scene of an accident they has caused.

]]>

barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeWed, 16 May 2018 19:45:21 +0000Acts 1:14 Does it Support Prayer Meetingshttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1304-acts-114-does-it-support-prayer-meetings
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1304-acts-114-does-it-support-prayer-meetingsA variety of texts are used to ‘prove’ the need for prayer meetings. This is one of them. Does it support regular prayer meetings? No, it does not support the prayer meetings most are used to in our modern day. Yet, even recently, I heard a sermon delivered by a respected and genuine Christian pastor, that claimed this text for the support of regular prayer meetings! Just as few Christians know how to interpret properly, so most seem incapable of reading scripture as they ought. This verse does NOT say what most think it says! The verse says:

“These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.”

All of scripture is ‘doctrine’, but not all texts are doctrinal laws. This text is an historical narrative, NOT a statement of doctrinal law. The verse gives an account of what happened on the day Jesus was taken up into Heaven. The apostles and other disciples saw Him ascend. They had every reason to think with “one accord”! They were at the very start of the era of the Christian Church, and had much to pray about. They also needed to replace Judas Iscariot with another man, and had to consider the coming Pentecost, when thousands, if not a million or two, Jews came to Jerusalem. It was the Spirit Who drew them to prayer – not a timetable.

]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeWed, 11 Mar 2015 12:36:44 +0000Are Prayer Meetings Valid?http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1712-are-prayer-meetings-valid
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1712-are-prayer-meetings-validNote: The substance of this Article first appeared in Moot Point, CRI Pack, Ref. 87/4:'Prayer Meetings: Are They Valid?' (1987). The original article included discussion points, comments and questions. These have now been incorporated into Course SBT/3. Readers should understand that the prayer meetings being referred to are those whole meetings given over to prayer, as they are today. The article is NOT critical of prayer itself, or of spontaneous prayer meetings where all those who pray speak with 'one accord' (discussed later).

The existence and validity of prayer meetings is taken for granted. Yet, of all meetings the prayer meeting is probably the least attended. Independent Protestant churches insist that the prayer meeting is the very core, or hub, of local church life. Without it, they say, the local church would die.

It is very easy for pastors to publicly blame the laxity of the flock, or the state of the world in general, because the prayer meeting is not attended. But, perhaps this is merely an excuse! Does a pastor have the right to pass-on blame in this way? Over the past several years this writer has questioned the whole matter and the validity of 'corporate prayer' as we have it today in our local churches. It is a matter of intense personal importance. After almost 30 years (2016 note: the figure is now 52 years) of being a Believer and of dutifully attending prayer meetings, I ask these questions:

"What exactly is a prayer meeting FOR?

What is its purpose?

Is it an authentic - and therefore valid - activity?"

Let us face these questions with honesty. If we can answer them, we may yet see life in near-dead churches. Without honesty, our churches become heavy with unbiblical traditions, like a small boat encrusted with barnacles. Sooner or later it will sink lower in the sea of spiritual life, until it is washed this way and that, like an old tin tub, by increasing tides of mere opinion, until it sinks without trace.

]]>

barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeTue, 30 Aug 2016 11:55:26 +0000Church Membershiphttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/461-church-membership
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/461-church-membershipWhat is church 'membership'? Is it scriptural? Is it valid? Every local church has its 'members' and every denomination has its 'member' churches. What does this membership really mean?

Normally, a person has to comply with certain conditions before he can take communion, for example. He must usually be a 'member'. The process of becoming a member can be very different, depending on denomination, locality, country, culture etc. It may require a letter of commendation from a former pastor or, proof that he is baptised. Other churches will ask for a brief interview: in my own interview (by a deacon, I may add - not by the pastor!) in one church I simply had a chat! The interviewer was almost apologetic and said that the rules demanded an interview... but he never even mentioned my Christian status - was I saved, or not?

]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeMon, 18 Jan 2010 13:59:45 +0000Communion/Lord’s Supperhttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1338-communion-lords-supper
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1338-communion-lords-supperIt is a sad fact that churches today follow tradition rather than scripture. Even Reformed churches stick to systems and not to what God actually says. We could go through a long list of these traditions and each one is useless. One such tradition is how we treat Communion (also called The Lord’s Supper).

Though a simple activity in scripture, it has become laden with human interference. For example, nothing in scripture tells us that only a pastor/ordained minister can give communion. The communion is to be shared, not led as if by a manager.

It is thought that the pastor must lead and pray, and then hand out the bread and wine to elders/deacons. None of this is found in scripture. Indeed, there are no commands, except to say we should hold communion together on a regular basis.

]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeFri, 20 Mar 2015 09:12:22 +0000Community Churches - a Misnomerhttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/647-community-churches-a-misnomer
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/647-community-churches-a-misnomerIt is the belief of this writer that a 'Community Church' is a misnomer - a wrong name. Also, the idea behind a 'community church' is itself an error.

What is meant by 'community church'? If we mean that the church building is used for community projects, then there is little harm in that, providing the projects are suitable and are not inconsistent with Christian belief or practice. To give some examples: a meeting place for the elderly, if none exist elsewhere, is fine. But, a disco for young people, playing dubious music and songs, would be out of character with Christian witness. A bahy crèche is fine, but not a yoga class. And even those projects which appear to be 'fine' must be carefully examined and monitored.

]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeThu, 30 Sep 2010 08:46:12 +0000Disfellowshiphttp://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/441-disfellowship
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/441-disfellowshipWhat is 'disfellowship'? It means that a person has been removed from fellowship with the brethren. The reasons can be many, so it should not be seen in the same light as 'excommunication', which is a 'kicking-out' of a person from a local church or even out of a whole denomination.
]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeThu, 16 Jul 2009 15:20:16 +0000Elephant in the Room - “Ignoring Truth”http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1329-elephant-in-the-room-ignoring-truth
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/1329-elephant-in-the-room-ignoring-truthThose who have read my material on the new churches, will know that I doubt the position of The Gospel Coalition. The Coalition hosted ‘The Elephant Room’ idea, which is fine if debate is between equal partners, but not if some partners in the debate are unsaved or heretical. This article is not about the Coalition or the ‘Elephant Room’ debates. Rather, it looks at the origin of the saying ‘The Elephant in the Room’.

The original source is not known, but it is accepted that the saying is from the USA. At its plainest, the saying refers to any topic that is big but not discussed, or is avoided. This happens much in Christian circles as they rally around a particular teacher or teaching. I know from experience that many churches avoid certain topics or teachings for fear of having a riot on their hands! Pastors do not talk on certain subjects for fear of members leaving in a huff for another church that agrees with their views. This, of course, should not be! The pastor must have the courage to speak out… if he loses his pastorate, then that is the price paid for truth. If he thereby loses members, then so be it – it is the price they pay for remaining ignorant and rebellious.

An elephant in a room is far too big to be ignored! That is why the phrase was coined. Yet, how many Christians avoid certain topics, or pussy-foot around them just in case someone gets annoyed or upset? Above all people, Christians should be marked by their absolute integrity and adherence to absolute truth, as given in scripture, otherwise they pander to lies, deception and half-truths. Sadly, few Christians are of this kind, even though it is required of them by God.

]]>barry.napier@ntlwold.com (K B Napier)Church LifeThu, 19 Mar 2015 09:50:04 +0000Local Church is Our Hub?http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/2032-local-church-is-our-hub
http://christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/church-life/2032-local-church-is-our-hubOn occasions I watch ‘Christian’ TV channels, just to be aware of what people are teaching. Today I watched a man teach about the local church. Typically for charismaticised meetings he walked back and forth across a large stage, complete with a prop and a very big screen behind him. It reminded me more of a feel-good seminar than a meeting of believers.

Anyway, his major point was that every believer must join a local church. He correctly said that the word we use, ‘church’, is based on the Bible word translated from the Greek, ‘ekklesia’. (For further outline information on the etymology of the word 'ekklesia', see 'What Is the Meaning of Ekklesia?', Christian Courier)

This is why what he said did not make sense.

The ekklesia is the body of Christ. It does not include unbelievers. And the ekklesia is made up of saved men and women who all believe and live the same things of God. We are certainly called to meet with fellow belie vers, but this does not necessarily equate with meeting them in a special building that many also call ‘the church’.

And this is why the speaker’s point was confused and misleading. He said that if we do not meet together in a ‘local church’ we are like severed arms doing our own thing. This, he said, is wrong, for God only works through the ‘local churches’. Because of this every believer must join a local church, which is but a microcosm of the universal church. Many who heard his words will no doubt be convinced, but as one who was called out of local churches, I was suspicious.

(Note: In this paper I will specifically and only deal with the actual meaning of the chosen text).

Now and then I send out a personal message to readers on our mailing list. That is, to those who elect to receive them, and not on the website itself, except on rare occasions. On Sunday 17th March, 2013 I sent out the following message. In this paper I will ‘fill in the gaps’ for those who might be confused.

“The Simplicity of Communion versus the Pomposity of Tradition

As usual, we had a great study time today (Luke 22). And what a difference between what the churches in the traditional ‘system’ teach and practice, and what Jesus Himself did at His ‘last supper’! There is no comparison. How complex and slightly off-the-mark man has made this simple but profound time!